The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Whiskey]

The onus is actually on MG (and those very few others) to post in good faith and to self regulate within the confines of the board rules - designed to allow good faith and robust interactions between human beings on the subject of Mormonism.

Onus is on MG? Here? On this board?. I am calling BS. Here, where half the replies are snipes, memes, and personal diagnoses. Here, where we have people saying what others think, as if their hallucinations are true? Here, where every second thread eventually circles back to DCP or Trump? Here, where the actual topic is abandoned the moment someone gets bored or trips balls and knows that another poster was thinking?

Yeah, AI fits right in. Not just as filler, but as the practical solution.

If you want posters to stop using AI, write something worth responding to. If you want human engagement, engage the actual argument. If you want better quality, raise the quality. People don’t resort to AI because they’re plotting some deception, they use it when they see that the bar has been set low enough that speed and volume matter more than accuracy, thought and connection. Fix the environment and the tools won’t matter. Let the environment stay what it is, and AI will merely be the dollar store mirror.

[Whiskey]

The onus is actually on MG (and those very few others) to post in good faith and to self regulate within the confines of the board rules - designed to allow good faith and robust interactions between human beings on the subject of Mormonism.

More on this...... Another angle. The personal angle. slightly different than my previous post, I think.

How many people on this board do you think actually know each other in real life? How manyhave ever introduced themselves with thier real name instead of a handle they picked twelve years ago? How many have ever said, “Here’s who I actually am,” outside of this controlled little sandbox?

And yet the same people hiding behind avatars and anonymous profiles are lecturing about the the need for “authentic” posting. That is absurd. If they're refuse to use their real identity, concern about authenticity rings hollow. They are already using a manufactured persona and choosing a filtered, partial version of themself.

This panic about AI reminds me of the people who claim they “lost their job to AI.” In almost every case, the truth is simpler. They were bad at the job. They were slow, unoriginal, repetitive, and inefficient. AI did not replace competence. AI replaced mediocrity. And the same thing is happening here.

If you write something worth engaging, people will respond as themselves. If you fill the board with predictable snipes, memes, and personal diagnoses, then AI fits right in because the quality standard is already low. The tool is not the problem. The environment is. If you want less AI, raise the bar. If you want more human engagement, act human. If you want sincerity, model it instead of performing outrage behind a fake name and an avatar.

Until then, complaining about AI while posting anonymously is like blaming the mirror for the reflection. Obviously, it is not exactly like that but you goet the idea, right?

[I Have Questions]

The onus is actually on MG (and those very few others) to post in good faith and to self regulate within the confines of the board rules - designed to allow good faith and robust interactions between human beings on the subject of Mormonism.

More on this...... Another angle. The personal angle. slightly different than my previous post, I think.

How many people on this board do you think actually know each other in real life? How manyhave ever introduced themselves with thier real name instead of a handle they picked twelve years ago? How many have ever said, “Here’s who I actually am,” outside of this controlled little sandbox?

And yet the same people hiding behind avatars and anonymous profiles are lecturing about the the need for “authentic” posting. That is absurd. If they're refuse to use their real identity, concern about authenticity rings hollow. They are already using a manufactured persona and choosing a filtered, partial version of themself.

This panic about AI reminds me of the people who claim they “lost their job to AI.” In almost every case, the truth is simpler. They were bad at the job. They were slow, unoriginal, repetitive, and inefficient. AI did not replace competence. AI replaced mediocrity. And the same thing is happening here.

If you write something worth engaging, people will respond as themselves. If you fill the board with predictable snipes, memes, and personal diagnoses, then AI fits right in because the quality standard is already low. The tool is not the problem. The environment is. If you want less AI, raise the bar. If you want more human engagement, act human. If you want sincerity, model it instead of performing outrage behind a fake name and an avatar.

Until then, complaining about AI while posting anonymously is like blaming the mirror for the reflection. Obviously, it is not exactly like that but you goet the idea, right?

No. It’s not like that at all. One can post in good faith, within the confines of the board rules, and still be anonymous. The AI issue is confined to a couple of posters who aren’t in compliance. That’s nothing to do with who they are in real life, it’s everything to do with how they behave when interacting on this board.

[Whiskey]

More on this...... Another angle. The personal angle. slightly different than my previous post, I think.

How many people on this board do you think actually know each other in real life? How manyhave ever introduced themselves with thier real name instead of a handle they picked twelve years ago? How many have ever said, “Here’s who I actually am,” outside of this controlled little sandbox?

And yet the same people hiding behind avatars and anonymous profiles are lecturing about the the need for “authentic” posting. That is absurd. If they're refuse to use their real identity, concern about authenticity rings hollow. They are already using a manufactured persona and choosing a filtered, partial version of themself.

This panic about AI reminds me of the people who claim they “lost their job to AI.” In almost every case, the truth is simpler. They were bad at the job. They were slow, unoriginal, repetitive, and inefficient. AI did not replace competence. AI replaced mediocrity. And the same thing is happening here.

If you write something worth engaging, people will respond as themselves. If you fill the board with predictable snipes, memes, and personal diagnoses, then AI fits right in because the quality standard is already low. The tool is not the problem. The environment is. If you want less AI, raise the bar. If you want more human engagement, act human. If you want sincerity, model it instead of performing outrage behind a fake name and an avatar.

Until then, complaining about AI while posting anonymously is like blaming the mirror for the reflection. Obviously, it is not exactly like that but you goet the idea, right?

No. It’s not like that at all. One can post in good faith, within the confines of the board rules, and still be anonymous. The AI issue is confined to a couple of posters who aren’t in compliance. That’s nothing to do with who they are in real life, it’s everything to do with how they behave when interacting on this board.

Okay. Well. I stand corrected maybe.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Shades, maybe I’m going about this the wrong way. An analogy, yes? Yes:

Using AI is like masturbating and then telling your friends you got laid.

Very little effort, you get your cookie, no one is impressed.

A discussion board should host discussions between human beings, not bots, LLMs, or plagiarismists.

[I Have Questions]

If there's no proof, then I'm forced to give the benefit of the doubt, aren't I?

You’re the board owner. You’re not forced to do anything. If you want “proof” then you need to specify what constitutes “proof” in YOUR eyes. Now you’ve articulated some nebulous “out of the norm styling” as an indicator, but that’s not “proof” is it?

I split it, and all responses to it, out of its original thread and into this one. That amounts to nothing?

Yes that amounts to nothing. Because you’ve dealt with the symptom, not the illness.

I was exaggerating. I was about to type "hundredth warning," but I thought that might be a little too over-the-top.

If you were exaggerating, I don’t think you were exaggerating by much.

Like I said, I didn't blow hot air at the problem. I both split the thread and gave him an official warning through the board software.

Another official warning? Because if that was his first then you’ve been sat on your hands all this time. If it wasn’t his first then you should know by now that official warnings mean absolutely nothing to a serial offender like MG.

In that case, educate me on how to spot A.I.-generated posts with the same accuracy that you spot them.

Easy, just scrutinise those one or two posters that you suspect are utilising AI outwith the board structure for using AI. You know most people are behaving themselves. As a rule of thumb, if MG 2.0 writes a post of longer than 3 lines, with detailed content that isn’t a quote, then he’s used AI to produce it.

Alternatively. Have a separate heart to heart with MG 2.0 to see if he is prepared to self regulate going forward. He is really the only problem with this topic. Personally I don’t think he respects you enough to do so. But I might be wrong. And then monitor him specifically to see if he meant what he said. When he lets you down (and he will let you down) you’ll have your proof. Because what matters here is you. It’s what you will accept that’s the key issue. We can blow whatever hot air we want, it’s irrelevant. We can post, or not post. That’s the only authority we have.

[Gadianton]

You’re the board owner. You’re not forced to do anything. If you want “proof” then you need to specify what constitutes “proof” in YOUR eyes. Now you’ve articulated some nebulous “out of the norm styling” as an indicator, but that’s not “proof” is it?

I think it goes beyond that, he's the board owner who made AI posting illegal, or at least constrained it to a single thread, and then is arguing with everybody saying it's impossible to tell if a post is AI. If you create a law, then you should have some idea how you're going to enforce the law. The effect is that honest people like Analytics will use the single thread while the dishonest ones find easy ways to continue.

On the one hand, you are convinced that Hound is "an AI" who is allowed, allegedly, to break the rules.

As are you. I'm sure you guys have a laugh about it now and again.

[Gadianton]

MORE EFFORT?? What would you do differently from me, specifically?

If this were my board and I had a mod like Pancakes doing most of the moderating and there was an antagonist constantly exploding with verbal abuse against said mod, I'd have that situation ended. Specifically? Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way. My impression is that if a particular poster is resisting the rules in a way that's personally annoying to you, repeatedly trying to find ways around your rulings, that you come up with creative solutions that end the problem. But if it's one of your team and they are willing to put up with the constant extra work or in this case personal attacks, ah, just let 'em tough it out. Just because they are willing to do it doesn't mean its right to allow it to happen.

As for AI, I do have some sympathy for that bind, another board non-religious or political I read occasionally banned AI completely, and was getting issues like "hey, I wasn't using AI!" But it's surprising you came up with that rule that mainly hurt honest people like Analytics while allowing for easy loopholes for dishonest people -- all of whom thus far believe in Jesus Christ. Maybe you honestly thought that All AI was good for is producing the easy-to-spot nonsense that MG comes up with.

[Whiskey]

MORE EFFORT?? What would you do differently from me, specifically?

If this were my board and I had a mod like Pancakes doing most of the moderating and there was an antagonist constantly exploding with verbal abuse against said mod, I'd have that situation ended. Specifically? Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way. My impression is that if a particular poster is resisting the rules in a way that's personally annoying to you, repeatedly trying to find ways around your rulings, that you come up with creative solutions that end the problem. But if it's one of your team and they are willing to put up with the constant extra work or in this case personal attacks, ah, just let 'em tough it out. Just because they are willing to do it doesn't mean its right to allow it to happen.

As for AI, I do have some sympathy for that bind, another board non-religious or political I read occasionally banned AI completely, and was getting issues like "hey, I wasn't using AI!" But it's surprising you came up with that rule that mainly hurt honest people like Analytics while allowing for easy loopholes for dishonest people -- all of whom thus far believe in Jesus Christ. Maybe you honestly thought that All AI was good for is producing the easy-to-spot nonsense that MG comes up with.

LMFAO!!!!!

Funniest post ever.

Consider reality, Gad. In the meantime, that was hysterical.

[canpakes]

If you want posters to stop using AI, write something worth responding to.

If person A’s post triggers person B to respond, then person B thought that there was apparently something worth responding to, whether the response was AI or not.